Resolve that the power of the President to pardon convicted criminals be abolished
The power of the President to give pardon to criminals should not be abolished because of the fact that the President did not abuse her powers and abided by what’s written in legal documents.
What is pardon in the government standards? Pardon is the act of grace or forgiveness, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the law, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed upon, from the punishment the law inflicts from the crime he has committed. The pardon in this case is given exclusively by the president. There is what we call a full pardon, on where the criminal is removed from all consequences instilled on him for the crime done thus making him as innocent as he was before the crime. Of course, the fact that the crime had been done does not erase the fact that the crime didn’t happen at all but it just ignores the difference between the crime and the criminal. Is it unfair for the victim? Is it right to do such things? The reality of the world isn’t fair, there are certain things that can’t be 100% fair. In this case, it might not be fair to the victims but we can’t be in denial of the fact that after a bad thing has been done, forgiveness is always open and is the chance of something good to happen. A pardon, subject to the limitations of the constitution, is granted a convicted criminal if he has demonstrated that he has fulfilled his debt to society. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who, it is claimed, have been wrongfully convicted. To accept a pardon is equivalent to admission of guilt. Joseph Estrada was offered pardon and he accepted it, thus, in effect, he admits his guilt of plunder for which he was convicted. One could not accept the pardon and say he is not guilty. That would be hypocrisy in the highest order. Admitting your mistake and feeling guilty...